44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 23, 2024 10:00AM
- May/23/24 3:11:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, decades ago, the Liberals promised to stop the closure of rural post offices. However, in classic Liberal fashion, they have broken that promise year after year. We have lost 500 rural post offices since 1994, 33 last year alone. Before the Conservatives start heckling, their record when they were in government was even worse.
How many rural post offices are going to have to close before the minister finally does something?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:12:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite because he speaks to a very relevant issue that is affecting Canadians all across Canada, not just in his community but everywhere.
We are working closely with Canada Post to ensure that we change its ways so that we can improve delivery across the country. It is a serious issue; we recognize that. We are having deliberations over it. We are working closely with Canadians. We are going to be spending more time discussing how we can improve the operations of the organization to better serve Canada.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:13:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Liberal government on achieving the highest interest rates in two decades, on the sustained high food prices that have not been seen since the 1980s and on reducing Canadian living standards to almost the lowest levels in 40 years.
Spread out over 20 years and beyond the next election, budget 2024 solves nothing. Yes, Canada has come a long way since 2015. Unfortunately, it is in the wrong direction.
Given the long list of failures, will the finance minister resign, take the entire cabinet with her, and go paint leadership posters for Mark Carney?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:13:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on keeping inflation low so that interest rates can come down. We have a fiscally responsible plan, and we will continue to maintain strong economic indicators, a AAA credit rating and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, all while having supports for Canadians in budget 2024, such as affordable housing, such as ECE and early childhood learning, such as supports for a national school food program.
We have a comprehensive plan and we are compassionate.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:15:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, it is time for what some say is the most exciting part of the week.
I just want to point something out, and I hope the Minister of Public Safety hears this. It is important to note for the record that in the MOU that set up the Hogue inquiry, during the discussions on that, requests were made by the official opposition to include very strict parameters about providing cabinet confidences to Justice Hogue. We were told we were in a take-it-or-leave-it position, so it is very disingenuous to now say it was the opposition that agreed to holding up cabinet confidences. Of course, we would have no reason to want or agree to that. That is an important thing to clarify.
As the Thursday question is related to the upcoming business of the House, I would like to ask the government House Leader this: What will the business be for the rest of this week and for next week, and can Canadians hope for some relief at the pumps? Will the government bring in legislation to remove all federal gas taxes, the carbon tax, the excise tax and the GST, off fuel so Canadians can afford a modest summer road trip?
As the government-caused inflation and interest rate crisis has taken such a big bite out of Canadians' paycheques, many are hoping just to be able to scrape enough together for their hotel bills and fuel bills. Taking the tax off fuel would go a long way towards providing Canadians an affordable summer vacation. Can members and Canadians expect any legislation that would provide them with that much-needed relief?
281 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by my hon. colleague across the aisle, with whom I work regularly. With gas at about $1.50 a litre in Ontario, if I am not mistaken, it is a lot cheaper than it is in Alberta, where Premier Danielle Smith unilaterally hiked the cost of gasoline by 13¢. She did not provide, of course, the very substantial rebates on the price on pollution we have put on and that the Conservatives would take away.
Of course, that was not his question. Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-58, concerning replacement workers, at report stage and at third reading. On Monday, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.
Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑70 on countering foreign interference, which is already a strong response to the issues being investigated by the Hogue commission. We will hear from the Minister of Public Safety at second reading of Bill C‑70.
I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.
Finally, as is only proper, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) later today:
(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;
(b) members speaking during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and
(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
323 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:18:56 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:19:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, prior to question period getting under way, I said that, eventually, we will be in an election campaign. When that happens, I will love the contrast that we are going to share with Canadians of the difference between the Liberals and the Government of Canada and the “Reformers”, or the unholy alliance between the Conservatives-Reformers and the Bloc party. I say that in all sincerity, because there is a substantial difference.
In their alliance, the Bloc and the Conservatives show the same attitude toward federal spending on programs that are important to Canadians. They have in common the way they have voted and indicated their lack of support for national programs that are being supported in many different ways across the country. It is important for us to show that contrast. The closer we get to 2025 and an election, the more Canadians are going to see that contrast. I believe they are going to say they want and support the types of programs that reflect Canadian values. They want a government that is prepared to work with other levels of government to provide the types of services that Canadians expect parliamentarians to deliver.
On the one hand, we have the Reformers, who masquerade as the Conservatives in the House. On that side, it is cut, cut, cut, and then we have a government that recognizes investing in Canadians is good for all of Canada. I would like to amplify that statement by talking about some of the programs that we have brought in or that the budget is talking about.
The Bloc brought forward a motion today that says, in essence, give us money or give us nothing. I understand that, because they are separatists. They want Canada to be broken up. They do not support Canada as a nation, the way it is today.
Let us talk about some of the programs. We have a national dental care program that is providing services in every region of our country. Seniors today are benefiting from that program. Children have benefited from the program. It is a program that continues to expand in every region of the country. We have political parties on the opposite side, the unholy alliance, saying that they are going to get rid of or that they do not support the Canada dental care plan, taking it away from seniors.
I would highlight, for example, that every member of Parliament has seniors in their ridings, on fixed incomes, who have registered for the program and are receiving services. The unholy alliance is prepared to get rid of that program. The Conservatives will say it is a cost factor; they do not believe we should be spending money on that particular issue. Then we have the Bloc saying that it is provincial jurisdiction and that Ottawa should not be entering into provincial jurisdiction. Both arguments have a great deal of myth to them. The fact of the matter is that this particular program, like other programs, has been developed through a great deal of consultation and working with Canadians, which is why we have it today.
Unfortunately, both of those opposition parties are voting against it. What they are really doing is putting party politics ahead of the needs of the constituents they represent.
Let us talk about the pharmacare program. It does not matter what area of the country or what province Canadians live in, if they are diabetic, they would receive free medical assistance through pharmaceuticals to deal with their diabetes. We are not talking about thousands of Canadians. We are talking about millions of Canadians who would benefit from that one aspect of the pharmacare program that is being introduced. However, once again, we have the Conservatives saying no to those constituents that they represent who are in need of that medication. One has to question why. What is the motivating factor behind it?
Again, what we see in that motivation is the Conservative's and the Bloc's attitudes towards health care. They do not believe that the federal government has any role in health care at all, with the exception of handing over money. Ottawa is nothing more than an ATM to them, and the only role Ottawa is to play is to give money to the provinces for health care.
It does not matter to them if a service is in one area of the country and not in another area of the country. They do not see the visionary policies that would provide pharmacare and dental care. Dental care is a health care service. Every year we have children who, because they are not getting the dental service that they require, end up in emergency rooms. Do members know how many times individuals with diabetes get amputations because they are not getting the proper medical supplies they need? It is all tied in to health care.
Then we have the Bloc members, the separatists, who say that they just do not care about it. They are more concerned about dividing and breaking up the country. That is the role they play. I can appreciate, to a certain degree, that at least the Bloc members are transparent.
However, why would the Conservatives take that sort of an approach? They should talk to your constituents. I believe they would find that people love the health care that we provide today across Canada. It is a national program.
We have the Canada Health Act to protect the integrity of the system. We have a government that has invested hundreds of millions, actually, let me get it right, as we just committed in negotiations with provinces of $198 billion. That is $198 billion over the next 10 years to commit to Canada's health system, to deal with issues such as long-term care, mental health and many other issues, including labour-related issues. We are concerned about doctors and nurses, and many other aspects of health care, including the support workers who play such a critical role. We recognize that importance.
When I posed the question in the House of Commons to the leader of the Conservative-Reform Party earlier today, the response was exceptionally disappointing. All he did was reaffirm the degree to which the Conservative Party today has moved to the right and the people it is listening to.
The Conservatives do not believe in a health care system to the degree that we have it today. There is a hidden Conservative agenda. When we think of the health care we have today, we can look at the province of Saskatchewan and how it contributed to having a national health care system.
We now have a national child care system. We needed to look to the province of Quebec and what the province of Quebec provided, which ultimately led to us having a $10-a-day national child care program. It is the benefit of a federation that we can take a look at what is working well and look at how we can turn things into a program so that all Canadians can benefit from it.
Whether someone lives in Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Edmonton, Halifax, Whitehorse or anywhere in between, we understand that there are national things that we can all treasure, whether they are programs such as OAS or employment insurance, which were brought in by prime ministers such as Mackenzie King, or the types of programs that the Prime Minister and the government, this collection of Liberal members of Parliament, continue to push for, day in and day out.
We are looking and listening to what our constituents are telling us, bringing that forward here to Ottawa, and developing policy that is going to help Canadians. Unfortunately, time and time again, we see opposition coming from the Bloc, in its breaking up the nation, and the Conservatives, who do not care about providing the type of social safety net that Canadians have grown to believe in and want to see expanded.
There is nothing wrong with being a government that cares with competence, and that is what the Prime Minister and the government have continuously delivered for Canadians.
1365 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:31:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's passion, but it is not always well directed.
I am going to read him two quotes, and I would like him to give me his opinion.
These are quotes from Lester B. Pearson, a Liberal prime minister, just like his. He said, “Although Quebec is a province in this Confederation, it is more than a province, for it is the home of a people: that is why it is fair to say that it is a nation within the nation.”
He also said that we should take steps, arrangements, so that Quebec would have de facto power in the areas it wished to have under its authority. He said, “By imposing a centralism which, if acceptable to some provinces, was certainly not acceptable to Quebec, and by insisting that Quebec be [treated in a manner] similar to the other provinces, we could destroy Canada”. A former prime minister said that.
Is my colleague aware that this is what he is doing?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:32:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member himself is aware that I have many generations of family history in Canada, which goes back to the province of Quebec. One of my greatest regrets is that many individuals in western Canada lost the ability to speak French because of all sorts of issues. Ultimately, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the initiatives he took ensured that the French language was being spoken more outside of the province of Quebec.
I have consistently, through my years as a parliamentarian, argued just how wonderful the French language is, how it contributes to the Canadian identity and how it makes the province of Quebec such a unique, loving place, not only to visit, but also to live in. Quebec, just like other provinces, contributes immensely. I made reference to the child care program. There are many aspects, including the culture and the arts.
The province of Manitoba and the province of Quebec share many things in common. On industry, I can talk about the aerospace industry. I can talk about hydro and concerns about the environment. There are all sorts of things that we do not have to tear down in the country to appreciate. I care for the province of Quebec as much as I care for other areas of Canada, and I will continue to fight and articulate why it is so critically important that Quebec lead not only Canada, but also North America, in the French language and the unique role that Quebec plays in ensuring that French will continue to be not only spoken, but also—
267 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:34:51 p.m.
- Watch
We will move on to the next question as we are running out of time.
The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has the floor.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see the member for Winnipeg North stand in this place to loudly proclaim his support for the important programs of pharmacare and dental care. This is even more so due to the fact that, in the 43rd Parliament, when it came to Bill C-213, introduced by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and a motion on dental care, which was introduced by former MP Jack Harris, that member and the entire Liberal caucus voted against those measures. They voted against pharmacare and against dental care.
I am glad to see that, on the road to Damascus, the Liberals have arrived at their conversion. I just want to know what changed. What led the Liberals to suddenly have this vision that these were, in fact, the right programs to put in place now? Could it be that the New Democrats forced them to do it?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:35:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I get a flashback of being with my daughter Cindy, who is an MLA in the province of Manitoba, and I can recall us being on Keewatin Street, where we had these signs. We were saying that we wanted to have a national pharmacare program and that it would be wonderful to see the Province of Manitoba work with Ottawa to make that happen. I can recall a throne speech a few years back in which Ottawa made reference to the fact that we were looking for a willing province.
I like to think that, now that Manitoba has an NDP government, maybe we will get that much more sympathy for getting it. I have introduced many petitions over the years on the importance of a pharmacare program. I have spoken to it inside the House on many occasions.
Am I glad that it is here? I am glad. I believe the NDP also played an important role in it, and I give them credit for that, but I think that there are members of Parliament on all sides of the House, although maybe not among the Conservatives, but possibly, who support the idea of having a national pharmacare program, because it makes a whole lot of sense.
When I was in the Manitoba legislature, I was the health care critic. I can tell members that a national pharmacare program, especially if one gets the provinces working with Ottawa, could really do some wonderful things. It would be to the betterment of all of us.
257 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:37:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I refer the parliamentary secretary to Confederation in 1867. The historical compromise was to have assemblies that were equally sovereign in their respective areas of jurisdiction. However, listening to the parliamentary secretary's speech, what we see is nothing but interference. All he is doing is justifying the interference, and he is breaking this agreement of a federation made up of equally sovereign assemblies.
In the end, does he want to have a legislative union, a centralized government with an Ottawa-knows-best attitude that dictates to the provinces, who are mere administrators?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:38:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would not want the member to put words in my mouth. What I am suggesting is that the people of Canada, no matter what region of the country they live in, appreciate it when governments work together. I would ultimately argue that, when governments work together, one gets better results.
On jurisdiction, we have the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act is something that ensures that there is a national health care system from coast to coast to coast. I believe that the majority of people in Canada today support the need for the Canada Health Act.
We need to be more appreciative of the many different things that the different regions have to offer and recognize the uniqueness of the different provincial entities. Obviously, Quebec stands out because of that sense of French uniqueness and the culture, arts and heritage of the province of Quebec.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:39:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier, when I read the quotes to my colleague, I thought he would understand them. After all, they seem pretty clear to me. Now, since he does not seem to have understood them, I am going to explain them to him.
There have already been Canadian prime ministers who recognized Quebec's specificity and areas of jurisdiction, and who accepted or offered the right to opt out with full compensation, so when my colleague tells me that we want to tear the country apart, that is not true. We are not going to tear the country apart, we want to build our own, which is very different. When my colleague tells me that Canada is a great country, I tell him that, if we were really part of this country, we would be respected here, and if we were respected here, so would our skills and the powers of our national government.
What does he think about that? He probably will not have understood much of what I have just said, but I can start over.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:40:16 p.m.
- Watch
This is a question and comment period. Members can give answers or make comments.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:40:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did understand the question. Let us take a look at William Mackenzie King; prior to Mackenzie King becoming the Prime Minister of Canada, there was a great deal of discussion about pensions. The pensions were, in fact, at one point in time, provincial jurisdiction. Mackenzie King came in and then ultimately worked with the province to develop a national program, and today we have the OAS system. I believe a vast majority of Canadians like the old age system we have, which provides a monthly income and keeps a lot of seniors out of a poverty situation.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:41:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today's motion reads as follows:
That the House:
(a) condemn the federal government's repeated intrusion into the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories;
(b) remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”; and
(c) demand that the government systematically offer Quebec, the provinces and territories the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation whenever the federal government interferes in their jurisdictions.
I do not know what my colleagues think of this, but it feels like déjà vu to me.
Let us start at the beginning The Constitution Act, 1867, divides up federal and provincial jurisdiction in sections 91 and 92. It is just a list, kind of a shopping list. However, the federal government's history of attempting to legislate in areas under provincial jurisdiction is impressive. How much money has been wasted on needless, fruitless and even harmful legal wrangling and pseudo-negotiations?
Our courts have had many opportunities to remind us of the terms of the Constitution in which the federal government constantly drapes itself but systemically disrespects. I have a suggestion to make to members of the government, which is to reread sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. They are only two pages long, and they are in both French and English.
Secondly, on the subject of authority, a reference relating to securities law was handed down in 2011 by the Supreme Court of Canada. The federal government should go back and read the explanations given by the judges in this decision as to how the division of powers works. I will mention just three.
Paragraph 119 says, “Inherently sovereign, the provinces will always retain the ability to resile from an interprovincial scheme”. Paragraph 119 also states, “it is in the nature of a federation that different provinces adopt their own unique approaches consistent with their unique priorities when addressing social or economic issues.”
The third example is found in paragraph 71:
The Canadian federation rests on the organizing principle that the orders of government are coordinate and not subordinate one to the other. As a consequence, a federal head of power cannot be given a scope that would eviscerate a provincial legislative competence. This is one of the principles that underlies the Constitution...
The Supreme Court said that. It was not the first time.
In 1919, the Supreme Court's decision in In Re The Initiative and Referendum Act stated that the purpose of the Constitution Act, 1867, was:
not to weld the Provinces into one, nor to subordinate Provincial Governments to a central authority, but to establish a Central Government in which these Provinces should be represented, entrusted with exclusive authority only in affairs in which they had a common interest. Subject to this each Province was to retain its independence and autonomy....
The Constitution is clear. The Supreme Court has said this many times. I just quoted from two decisions, but the current federal government does not seem to understand these simple principles, which a first-year law student would easily understand.
We are now seeing multiple intrusions and attempted intrusions. Look at pharmacare. Quebec's system has room for improvement, but it does exist. The federal government should transfer the money instead of creating a new costly and inefficient structure.
As in the case of pharmacare, Quebec already has a public dental insurance system, managed by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. We agree that it could be improved, but the federal government is determined to create its own parallel system. If the money were transferred to the provinces with no strings attached, these plans could be upgraded. Instead, the government is going to spend money to create conflicting and sometimes overlapping provisions.
The federal renters' bill of rights is a new scheme devised this spring. Announced in late March, this bill of rights would require landlords to disclose rent histories. It would also crack down on renovictions and establish a standard, national lease template, among other things. However, jurisdiction over property and civil rights, as set out in subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is assigned exclusively to Quebec and the provinces. Yesterday, in fact, Quebec's minister of municipal affairs and housing introduced Bill 65 in the National Assembly. The bill aims to regulate evictions by imposing a three-year moratorium. Quebec is doing what it must. The minister said this morning on the Radio-Canada program Tout un matin that the federal government should simply look after its own responsibilities, like the out-of-control temporary immigration that is driving up the demand for housing.
Another type of intrusion is the promise to challenge Quebec's state secularism law. On June 16, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 21, which seeks to ensure that all Quebeckers have the freedom to practise and display their religious convictions without the state expressing any preference whatsoever. That is what is known as secularism. The Quebec state is secular both in spirit and in letter. It must be secular in both word and deed, demonstrating its secularism through its representatives. How is this the federal government's business? Why is the current federal government not only promising to challenge this legislation before the Supreme Court, but also funding the various legal challenges it is facing? This is clearly interference in provincial jurisdictions, and it explains, in part, the motion before us today.
Beyond respect for jurisdictions, what about respect for the motions of the House?
On June 16, it will be three years since the House of Commons adopted the following motion, and I quote:
That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.
Since then, the federal Minister of Justice has still not entered in his administrative codification Quebec's changes to section 90, regarding language and nation, and to section 128, regarding the oath to the King. I would point out that this codification is mainly used by judges, lawyers and other court officials. The Government of Quebec has updated its codification, which incorporates the changes made by Quebec and Saskatchewan. What is the federal government waiting for?
Respect for jurisdictions also involves respect for motions that call upon the government to acknowledge the actions taken by various governments in their areas of jurisdiction. I would like someone to explain the reason for this oversight. For now, only Quebec has an up-to-date codification of the Constitution Act.
At the beginning of April, the Prime Minister said that people do not really care which level of government is responsible for what. A Leger poll released on April 19 tells us that 80% of Quebeckers believe that governments must respect their respective areas of jurisdiction and that 74% of them believe that Ottawa must get the agreement of the provinces before it intervenes in their areas of jurisdiction. Quebeckers, like Canadians across the country, certainly want affordable rent and groceries, but I do not recall anyone talking about chaos.
My time is up. I would still have much to say. Perhaps I will continue in my response to questions, if there are any.
1273 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:51:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member focused a great deal of his speech on the constitutional element. I want to go back to the constituents he represents. Does the member believe that the dental program that is in place, the school food program that is being rolled out and pharmacare, which is going to provide medication for people with diabetes, are programs the member will not support because of his position with respect to the Constitution? Would he deny his constituents those program benefits?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
